Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council May 23, 2005 <br />Regular Meeting Page 8 <br /> <br />Land Use Plan to get a good view of where they want the Community to go and to then bring the 1 <br />zoning ordinance into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He expressed concerns stating 2 <br />that this is the first time he has seen a zoning ordinance guide the Comprehensive Plan and asked 3 <br />if they could do a moratorium or place a hold on this. 4 <br /> 5 <br />County Representative stated that the City Council does have the option but there are restrictions 6 <br />in place from the legislation. He explained that if an inner ordinance is adopted the City could 7 <br />call a moratorium to conduct the study. 8 <br /> 9 <br />Mr. McCarty urged the Council to do this and give the City a chance to breath. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Bob Glazer expressed concerns about the stormwater runoff and asked if the excess quota 12 <br />generated would relate back in any way to the street and gutter improvement project. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Mayor Marty acknowledged Mr. Glazer’s concerns stating that to his knowledge he does not 15 <br />believe that it relates back. 16 <br /> 17 <br />Mr. Glazer asked how the City plans to take care of the water management plan with the 18 <br />proposed project. He explained that the golf course was installed as a way and means of helping 19 <br />to manage the water runoff in this area. 20 <br /> 21 <br />City Administrator Ulrich explained that they have not gotten into that level of detail yet noting 22 <br />that the Watershed would dictate the stormwater management process. He further explained that 23 <br />the runoff would have to be rerouted and ponded, onsite, in different locations. He stated that 24 <br />this has not been worked out yet from an engineering perspective. 25 <br /> 26 <br />Barbara Haake noted that on January 19, 2005 the land use amendment was first introduced. She 27 <br />noted that it states that a public hearing was to be scheduled for February 2, 2005 and asked for 28 <br />clarification on the exact wording the Planning Commission gave as their recommendation to 29 <br />City Council on what the zoning would be. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Director Ericson reviewed the Planning Commission’s motion with Council stating that it 32 <br />concludes that The Bridges site should bear future land use designation of OFC. He further 33 <br />clarified that when it states re-development it is because the golf course is already a developed 34 <br />property. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Ms. Haake stated that she wants to be sure that the billboards are consistent noting that they 37 <br />could have removed the whole bottom portion of the parcel where billboards are located and 38 <br />subdivide. 39 <br /> 40 <br />City Attorney Riggs explained that the proposal was for six billboards across the property and 41 <br />slicing off a portion of continuing use land would have been very difficult to do. 42 <br /> 43 <br />Director Ericson explained that the reference to MnDOT is because they are the permitting 44 <br />agency and they are the ones that control the Federal Highway Beautification Act. 45